If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

NOTICE: Threads and Posts concerning or involving politics, religion, and postings concerning volatile topics such as climate change or environmentalism are not allowed on this, or any other, portion of the SDC Forums. Such posts will be immediately deleted.

Here's your chance to fight ethanol in gasoline

From SEMA:
"U.S. Congress Introduces Bill to Prohibit E15 Sales

Legislation (HR 1315) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit the sale of E15 (gasoline that is 15% ethanol), capping the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10%. The bill also eliminates the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) mandate that requires 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be blended into the U.S. fuel supply each year. Ethanol, especially in higher concentrations such as E15, can cause damage to older vehicles.

You Can Shape the Course of This Proposal

Request support for this legislation by using the following SAN website link for an overview and lawmaker contact."

Legislation (HR 1315) has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to prohibit the sale of E15 (gasoline that is 15% ethanol), capping the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10%. The bill also eliminates the Renewable Fuel Standard’s (RFS) mandate that requires 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol be blended into the U.S. fuel supply each year. Ethanol, especially in higher concentrations such as E15, can cause damage to older vehicles.

You Can Shape the Course of This Proposal

Request support for this legislation by using the following SAN website link for an overview and lawmaker contact."

No thanks. I, for one, do not fully oppose the addition of ethanol to gasoline, just as I don't oppose the elimination of lead.

The use of ethanol cuts two ways:

It reduces our dependence on foreign oil. That's a good thing.

It uses what could be food for automobile fuel. That's a bad thing.

What it does not do is damage ancient car parts.

The claim that 10 or 15 % ethanol in gasoline "damages" old, and by that I mean ancient cars is unproven.

Yes, parts of 40-50-60-70 year old cars deteriorate. Is that the fault of the modern fuel, or do those cars just need proper maintenance? Not long ago one member of this forum whined because the original fuel hoses on his 43 year old car leaked. He implicated modern fuel. FORTY THREE YEAR OLD HOSES LEAKED? LOL!!!

I own a 58 year old car. The carbs, fuel lines, tank and fuel pump were done 20 years ago. It's been on gasohol ever since. No problems. None. Zero. NADA.

I'm going to argue about the effects of alcohol in gasoline. I've had to replace the carburetors on both my lawn mower and gas string trimmer because of corrosion caused by the effects of ethanol. I've also seen corrosion in AFB carburetors such as corroded floats and corrosion in the bottom of the float bowls which I never saw in my carburetors before the introduction of ethanol into the gasoline . There is a reason that companies like Gates rubber have re formulated their fuel hose to reduce the effects of ethanol and subsequent deterioration of the hose. New cars and light trucks now have plastic gas tanks and intake manifolds to reduce problems with the use of ethanol. Alcohol belongs in good Scotch and not in my gas tanks. Bud

No thanks. I, for one, do not fully oppose the addition of ethanol to gasoline, just as I don't oppose the elimination of lead.

The use of ethanol cuts two ways:

It reduces our dependence on foreign oil. That's a good thing.

It uses what could be food for automobile fuel. That's a bad thing.

What it does not do is damage ancient car parts.

The claim that 10 or 15 % ethanol in gasoline "damages" old, and by that I mean ancient cars is unproven.

Yes, parts of 40-50-60-70 year old cars deteriorate. Is that the fault of the modern fuel, or do those cars just need proper maintenance? Not long ago one member of this forum whined because the original fuel hoses on his 43 year old car leaked. He implicated modern fuel. FORTY THREE YEAR OLD HOSES LEAKED? LOL!!!

I own a 58 year old car. The carbs, fuel lines, tank and fuel pump were done 20 years ago. It's been on gasohol ever since. No problems. None. Zero. NADA.

I suggest you check the motives of your source.

b

Ethanol does not cut into the food supply. The by products from ethanol are used for animal feed. We eat the animals for food. So actually you get food and fuel. That's a pretty good deal in my book.

No thanks. I, for one, do not fully oppose the addition of ethanol to gasoline, just as I don't oppose the elimination of lead.

The use of ethanol cuts two ways:

It reduces our dependence on foreign oil. That's a good thing.

It uses what could be food for automobile fuel. That's a bad thing.

What it does not do is damage ancient car parts.

The claim that 10 or 15 % ethanol in gasoline "damages" old, and by that I mean ancient cars is unproven.

Yes, parts of 40-50-60-70 year old cars deteriorate. Is that the fault of the modern fuel, or do those cars just need proper maintenance? Not long ago one member of this forum whined because the original fuel hoses on his 43 year old car leaked. He implicated modern fuel. FORTY THREE YEAR OLD HOSES LEAKED? LOL!!!

I own a 58 year old car. The carbs, fuel lines, tank and fuel pump were done 20 years ago. It's been on gasohol ever since. No problems. None. Zero. NADA.

I suggest you check the motives of your source.

I have to take exception the the statement regarding ethanol in fuel "What is does not do is damage ancient car parts." If you are using your own experience as a "source" to determine this fact that is pretty weak science! I strongly suggest you buy and read Randy Rundle's "The Official Guide to Modern Gasoline and Oil for Antique Vehicles". Randy has a tech article in this month's issue of TWs and he is an excellent "source" for determining what the issues with ethanol in gasoline are (www.fithaveinternetgarage.com)

The bad news is there are most definitely issues and damage done to any car built prior to 1980 using "gasahol". It attracts moisture from the atmosphere for example and can lead to corrosion of fuel system components. It also lowers the boiling point of the gas which leads to vapor lock which we are hearing more and more of. There are other issues as well, that's the bad news. The good news is there are measures which can be taken to mitigate or eliminate the problems. For example, adding one pint of diesel fuel for every 10 gal of "gasohol" will raise the boiling point to a level that may eliminate vapor lock! There are lots of little tricks and great advice in his book that for 15 bucks is worth every cent!

As for the politics of this issue I am Canadian so I can't help there but I did read one study from Western Canada that determined that the energy and pollutants used to grow and harvest the corn out weighed any benefits. But then again if the corn wasn't produced it would have been another crop so I am honestly not sure either way. What I am sure of is the alcohol in modern gasoline definitely DOES cause issues with our older vehicles.

Have played around with racing all of my adult life and the rule of thumb is if you use alcohol you need to double the jet size in carbs, only sounds logical to me that it takes more "gasahol" to do the same job that pure gas will do that relates to MORE MONEY out of my pocket to take that road trip or go visit my grand kids or even to go buy the food we all need.

One thing I found interesting in Randy's book is that the EPA did not mandate the use of ethanol but made a list of requirements of the auto industry and the manufactures determined ethanol to be the best way to achieve those standards. I wonder what some of the other options were?

I think I would dispute this statement -- as being somewhere between unproven and incorrect. It will probably remain unproven because Congress had prohibited the EPA from investigating whether ethanol in gasoline: (1) improves air quality, and/or (2) is a good idea, on a cost-vs-benefit basis. Adding ethanol to gas reduces gas mileage, and probably reduces exhaust emissions -- but does the increased petroleum consumption outweigh the improvement in air quality? We don't know.

And if the cost in dollars and petroleum usage of producing and shipping the corn and ethanol are included, does it actually reduce oil imports overall? We don't know. Corn is a very water- and fertilizer-intensive crop, and fertilizer is made from petroleum. Ethanol must be distilled, which requires a lot of oil. And it must be shipped, which requires a lot of oil. Would the land now dedicated to growing corn be used to grow something else that requires just as much petroleum? We don't know. Or would those now engaged in the corn and ethanol industries otherwise be on welfare? We don't know.

A truly objective study would be complicated and would be contentious, so as Dick Steinkamp said, the lobbyists will certainly get involved and the one with the most money will probably win.

Have played around with racing all of my adult life and the rule of thumb is if you use alcohol you need to double the jet size in carbs, only sounds logical to me that it takes more "gasahol" to do the same job that pure gas will do that relates to MORE MONEY out of my pocket to take that road trip or go visit my grand kids or even to go buy the food we all need.

Just my 2 cents

Johnny

It helps our farmers but I do not think it benefits car drivers. you need to check your milage with straight gas verses ethanol. My experience has been you use just as much gas per mile with 10% alcohol as if you were using all gasoline. It seems not to be effective to put it mildly.

Skip to answer part of you question, us corn growing farmers were not on welfare before ethanol and will not be if it is not produced. To me all the talk about ethanol is mute for any easy and cheap fix is to add a little atf oil to you gas tank on about every 2nd or 3rd fill up.

I think I would dispute this statement -- as being somewhere between unproven and incorrect. It will probably remain unproven because Congress had prohibited the EPA from investigating whether ethanol in gasoline: (1) improves air quality, and/or (2) is a good idea, on a cost-vs-benefit basis. Adding ethanol to gas reduces gas mileage, and probably reduces exhaust emissions -- but does the increased petroleum consumption outweigh the improvement in air quality? We don't know.

And if the cost in dollars and petroleum usage of producing and shipping the corn and ethanol are included, does it actually reduce oil imports overall? We don't know. Corn is a very water- and fertilizer-intensive crop, and fertilizer is made from petroleum. Ethanol must be distilled, which requires a lot of oil. And it must be shipped, which requires a lot of oil. Would the land now dedicated to growing corn be used to grow something else that requires just as much petroleum? We don't know. Or would those now engaged in the corn and ethanol industries otherwise be on welfare? We don't know.

A truly objective study would be complicated and would be contentious, so as Dick Steinkamp said, the lobbyists will certainly get involved and the one with the most money will probably win.

If we consider the petroleum used in the production of corn - fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, diesel fuel for plowing, planting, harvesting, and transporting and the energy used for fermenting and distilling off the ethanol, then transporting it again, it certainly could be that we do not reduce petroleum imports at all.

The best information I can find is that about 40% of our corn crop goes to ethanol production, thereby driving up the price of corn, corn-based products, and meat from corn-fed animals.

One thing we can be certain of is that ethanol in gasoline is a boon to corn growers.

An acre of farmland in a prime corn-producing area like Iowa will bring $10,000. There must be good profits in growing corn.

Please disregard my statement that ethanol reduces petro imports. That may not be true at all.

It helps our farmers but I do not think it benefits car drivers. you need to check your milage with straight gas verses ethanol. My experience has been you use just as much gas per mile with 10% alcohol as if you were using all gasoline. It seems not to be effective to put it mildly.

I have the same issue with biodiesel. My mileage decreases slightly, 10.5 mpg down to 10.0. This is the soy based bio, not the reclaimed vegetable oil. I only find the bio in the normal mid west farming states, not around the south or the east coast. I notice also that the truck starts a little more reluctantly and has a different "aroma" from the exhaust.

Last edited by bumpkinvilledano; 03-17-2017 at 07:13 PM.
Reason: spelling

Money may not buy happiness, but it's more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes than on a bicycle.

Skip to answer part of you question, us corn growing farmers were not on welfare before ethanol and will not be if it is not produced. To me all the talk about ethanol is mute for any easy and cheap fix is to add a little atf oil to you gas tank on about every 2nd or 3rd fill up.

Tom-
Did not intend to disparage corn farmers, who I'm sure would find something else to grow if the ethanol mandate was reduced. Farmers are, if nothing else, resilient. The comment was really aimed at Congress and the ethanol industry, which grew up from almost nothing after MTBE was banned and ethanol became the oxygenate of choice. Defenders of ethanol-laced fuel often defend it as producing many positive side effects, one of which is the thousands of new jobs in the ethanol industry. My view is that the government should only take actions that are intended to achieve a stated objective, and not engage in the hypocrisy of calling a political payoff and hidden subsidy a pollution-reduction program. If we want to create jobs, there are plenty of bridges that need to be repaired.

What an entertaining thread! What began as a simple PSA, (public service announcement), true to our Studebaker personalities...we pair off and begin to square dance on the head of a pin!

Oppose or endorse...we continually hear claims of "free market" virtues, while backing up to accept "subsidies" for our pet projects. I think the ethanol experiment has been a noble exercise. As with any worthwhile enterprise, there comes a time to let it "sink or swim," on its merits. I know of some folks who think corn is for eating, and others for drinking. (There is a successful "fake" reality show dedicated to drinkable corn.)

I've noticed, recently, the finance/investment pundits, were predicting a huge increase in fuel prices to comply with seasonal "Blend" requirements. As if to talk-up, promote, and prepare the public to accept artificial price hikes. However, I'm noticing, like a lot of other trends, seems the public (and the market) are in an uncooperative mood, and price hikes are not gaining traction, or being sustained.

So far, I have experienced a bunch of little hiccups I blame on ethanol, but if, or when, it goes away, I'll just find something else to blame. One thing I miss about "leaded" gas, is that when it was the norm, you could always tell if your engine was properly tuned by the grayish exhaust deposit...as a sign of a well tuned engine!

If it takes more than a gallon of oil to produce a gallon of ethanol, ethanol loses. If you add ethanol to gasoline and the mileage of the vehicle decreases, ethanol loses. The vehicle that uses an ethanol blend that now gets less mileage, produces more pollutants per mile because of the decrease in mileage. Where is the benefit, except to growers & Archer, Daniels, Midland, to the public that purchases a fuel that gets less mileage & produces more pollution per mile? I didn't think I'd ever see the repeal of the 55 speed limit because of the revenue it generated for the states through enforcement, however the public demanded repeal. There is hope. After all WA state finally got out of running the liquor business, MN repealed the ban on selling alcohol on Sundays, and the sun still rises in the east & sets in the west. Armeggdon was avoided.

"Every man I meet on the street is superior to me in some respect, and from that I can learn."
R.W. Emerson

I have the same issue with biodiesel. My mileage decreases slightly, 10.5 mpg down to 10.0. This is the soy based bio, not the reclaimed vegetable oil. I only find the bio in the normal mid west farming states, not around the south or the east coast. I notice also that the truck starts a little more reluctantly and has a different "aroma" from the exhaust.

I should clarify; This is a blend of bio and regular diesel. I don't recall off the top of my head the percentage of bio, but I believe it's about the same as the gasohol; 10-15%

Money may not buy happiness, but it's more comfortable to cry in a Mercedes than on a bicycle.

The only benefit of ethanol that I am aware of is its ability to raise the octane level of gasoline without the use of hazardous chemicals. With that said, I believe that engines with direct-fuel injection can operate on lower octane gas and therefor not need the added octane. The direct fuel injection prevents pre-ignition (knocking) just as it does for a diesel engine.

It is my understanding that food prices increased when the demand of corn-for-ethanol production increased. Why grow oats, wheat, barley, etc. when corn is the most profitable to grow? The only way to keep farmers producing an adequate supply of oats, wheat, barley, etc. was to increase the prices paid for these crops, which lead to higher food prices at the grocery store. I'm not bashing any farmers, it is just business and I would do the same thing if I was a crop farmer.

As for lowering our dependence on foreign oil, we currently have an abundance of oil being pumped from wells right here in the United States. Last year, 3 million barrels of refined oil was exported from our country every single day! Here is a link to the article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-exports-boom

Another benefit of oil is that it can be pumped through pipelines directly to the refineries, whereas ethanol is transported by railroad tankers. Just this week, a train pulling 101 tanker cars of ethanol derailed in Iowa and caught fire. Three of those tanker cars are currently in an Iowa creek waiting to be pulled out. Luckily, it didn't derail in a city. Here is a link to the article: http://www.omaha.com/news/iowa/three...20c6a3426.html

One thing is certain- ethanol in gas gives worst fuel economy than without so increasing it to 15% will increase the amount of fuel used, gas tax revenue will increase as will sales taxes on those states that add that onto the top end too (as in California). As far as the foreign oil dependency that remains to be seen as now it has been said that the U.S. reserves are only second to Saudi Arabia. As the fleet is becoming more & more fuel efficient there is now oil available to export if laws will permit.

I have 2 riding mowers & a gas powered weed eater that the fuel mandated us to use have become lawn ornaments. I've also given up replacing fuel hose once a year & now use hose made for fuel injected cars that's 4-5 times as expensive. Those who deny that this alcohol fuel doesn't harm their engines need to see for themselves with a proper tear down.

The basic truth is, OXYGENATES are not needed at all. Properly formulated GASOLINE, properly distributed and ignited will burn more completely, has more BTUS and will deliver higher MPG. There was a time when they were thought to be needed to get more complete combustion, and help cars meet EPA air quality rules. As carburetors and distributors disappeared and fuel injection improved the causes of incomplete combustion have all but disappeared. Unfortunately the rule to add oxygenates should have been a temporary measure, but as with most laws, making them is a lot easier than getting rid of them. Now ETHANOL is a big agribusiness. The damage or lack of same to older carbureted cars isn't the fuel, it's the materials used at the time, which didn't need to be corrosion proof and fend off water and electrolysis in the fuel systems. Ethanol, by itself, doesn't hurt much except certain types of rubber. Pull in H2O and then the acids start forming from mixing with the gasoline itself. Making alcohols uses a huge amount of water, better left for humans to drink. You can run on pure ethanol, even on our old cars, just figure about 50% more fuel to get you to the same place. By the time the government gets around to reacting to the science, they will be trying to figure out how to collect taxes on the electricity used for cars instead of gasoline, as that revenue source disappears and the roads crumble, but there won't be a "carbon footprint". About that time an asteroid will strike earth causing "global freezing".
.